Statewide, about 60% of Texas public school students are classified as economically disadvantaged. A campus at or above that share is considered high-poverty. By that measure, roughly 5,400 of the state’s more than 9,000 rated campuses qualify.
Poverty does not determine a school’s rating
Nearly half of high-poverty campuses are already earning an A or B in our accountability system. In 2025, 45% of high-poverty (defined as campuses having 60% or more of students who are economically disadvantaged) campuses earned an A or B, while 72% of higher-income campuses earned a top score.
That gap is real, and closing it matters. But a 27-point gap is not the same as a ceiling.
Laredo ISD’s Farias and Leyendecker elementary schools are excellent examples. In 2025, both serve student populations that are effectively 100% economically disadvantaged; both earned an A, with Student Achievement scores of 92 and 93. Pierce Elementary, also in Laredo ISD and 99.8% economically disadvantaged, scored a 90. Houston ISD’s Edison Middle School, at 99.7% economically disadvantaged, scored an 80.
These campuses span elementary through high school, urban and rural districts, and hundreds of others follow the same pattern.
Where A-F earns its keep: pointing to where support is needed
The same rating system that shows high-poverty campuses can earn A’s also shows, quickly and with specificity, which ones are not. That’s the practical value of A-F for high-poverty campuses specifically. It separates campuses where poverty is coinciding with strong outcomes from campuses where it’s coinciding with weak ones.
The system does this every year, campus by campus, instead of waiting several years to find out. A school or state leader looking to direct support — instructional coaching, leadership placement, additional funding — can use the rating alongside the underlying domain scores to identify which high-poverty campuses need it most, rather than treating “high-poverty” itself as the signal.
Why this matters
The gap between high-poverty and low-poverty campus performance is a genuine disparity. It should stay a priority for school and state leaders. By leveraging accountability ratings, policymakers at the state and local levels can dig into what the highest-performing high-poverty campuses are doing differently. They can then consider scaling strategies to the campuses still working to close the gap.
